Lame Duck Dynasty and Beach Parking Fees at Ludington City Council October 26, 2026 Meeting

[XLFD]

The deceptive absence of action items in the agenda packet for the October 26, 2026 meeting of the Ludington City Council would lend one to believe that this was a quick meeting.  But this meeting would have a run time of over 130 minutes, primarily because the issue of beach parking fees was once again part of the discussion and a few dozen citizens showed up to speak their mind, as would the councilors later on.

After both factions had their say a couple of things were evident.  First, beach parking fees were not well received by the community, just like they weren't back in 2017 and 2023 when this topic came up.  This time around they want to factor in future budget deficit spending as a great reason to back it now, even if you were against it before.  Second, just like the special assessment fiasco owned by the city manager, Kaitlyn Aldrich, earlier this fall, the city looks as if they're trying to rush in getting it passed during the time of a mostly lame duck legislature.  Three of seven councilors will not be in that spot after the year is over, each of which are prone to overtax and overspend when compared to the three odd-ward councilors.  

This rushing to create unpopular revenue streams has not gone unnoticed by the public.  Many of those coming forth at the end of last month and every meeting since have not only asked for some sort of reckoning as to why the schemes were necessary but also offered alternative ways to present it to the public.  What they have got is mostly silence, an offering of unrealistic cuts to popular city services and programs, and a full steam ahead towards hiring one more administrator for nearly $200,000 a year.  The administrators are inept, incompetent, and trying to grow bigger in both.

Thus, when Dan Jensen started the public comment saying:  "After the withdrawal of the proposed special assessments, what revenues have been adjusted, what expenditures have been reduced, what obligations remain, and how that the projected general fund results changed?", he gets at best some dumb looking stares.  Jason Kirkpatrick's theme was similar in his comment that followed:  "We've seen discussions of approximately $207,800 in debt associated with the special assessment approaching $600,000. Taxpayers deserve a clear, itemized explanation of that difference. We've raised questions about departmental overspending, employee raises, bonuses, and administrative compensations. Where is the public accounting of what these decisions cost taxpayers? "

Jeff Henry would go further in trying to get some transparency and accountability, offering his services free to take a look at the numbers the city is looking at and not revealing:  "We're offering another set of eyes on the numbers. Our purpose is straightforward, to help establish a financial record that is accurate, understandable, and useful to both council and the public. We believe cooperation and independent scrutiny can work together."  These and every other comment in full is found in the meeting's transcript.  

Annette Quillan would offer her administrative wisdom and how wage freezes and unpaid workdays were often used at public institutions she worked at in the previous century.  Mary Burden, who helps manage the Jaycee's minigolf operation at the beach, expressed her concerns that the 5 employees she uses would be... burdened with the extra cost, even with city residents being exempt, as the majority lived out of town.  She noted the business would also suffer from the $15 daily fee being high enough to scare away tourists from stopping.

Bill Blair, Peggy Arndt, and Greg Johnson followed each having their own personal concerns regarding the parking fees being wrong for the beach, and then this reporter approached the podium and continued the debate against the proposal:

XLFD: (27:15 in) "I put up a poll back in 2023 when city leaders last looked to charge for parking at Stearns Beach and it echoed the sentiments of citizens who attended the special meeting back then to gauge sentiments.  93% were against it, and that wouldn't likely change by much if Ludington residents got a free pass; we recognize the importance of keeping the beach freely accessible for tourism related businesses in the city and the importance of keeping within the wishes of the Stearns family donators who would likely reject parking fees just like their modern-day descendants have recently declared. 

It's unfortunate that our city adminis-traitors are still solely focusing on revenue generation rather then trimming a bloated budget that you want to bloat even further by creating a new office.  But you probably, naively, believe a consulting law firm hired by the city manager unlawfully without your approval for the expense of $40,000 and counting, who said you have a revenue generation problem rather than an expenditure issue, ignoring several key indicators of such.  The taxpayers over the last four years have seen their taxes raised at twice the inflation rate over that period, this burden will grow more dramatic in scope next year due to your summer activities of raising the tax rates via truth in taxation and adding a 1% property tax administration fee to the tax bills.  This is a failure of adminis-traitors.

Taxpayers have to adjust their spending behavior when their tax bills more than doubles the inflation rate, some have the option to work longer and harder to earn more.  Others live on fixed incomes that with any luck keeps pace with inflation, but not twice that rate.  They need to make difficult decisions on what expenses they need to cut so that the government doesn't take their property for non-payment of taxes.  The elitist amidst you, a majority of this council, may welcome this survival of the financially fittest, thinking it may lead to better gentrification of the city, but it will just as likely lead to an economic death spiral if realities are ignored."  [END comment]

Suffice it to say, they ignored Aldrich's illegal hiring of the consultants who told us that Ludington has no spending problem, that it was all just a revenue problem.  What we have is a competency problem at the city manager level, and her handling of this and the special assessment proposals illustrate this quite starkly. 

Six other people would speak who would also be concerned with the parking fees, and two who weren't.  Jack Stibitz, father of the 4th Ward councilor he is a candidate for, spoke of blight, and argued that the magistrate was the reason why many of the city's tickets were being held up, fellow candidate from the 2nd Ward Eric Case concurred later.  Aldrich would later relate an anecdote where she sat with Judge Middlebrook for a while, but nothing materially had come of it.

John Fellows, would tell them that they needed to consider three terms when trying to learn how to live within their means:  consolidate, delegate, and eliminate.  He hadn't seen any of these being considered over the last two months.

One can look at the video, follow along with the transcript, and review it again and again, but you won't have the opportunity to see the city officials do anything other than develop what beach parking would look like, what would be the economic impact (spoiler: they have no idea), and their first impressions.  Our impression is that they are planning to do this, despite the almost universal dislike, because they feel politically protected-- either by dint of three of their retirements or the fact that there would be a means of having exemptions given to vehicles that are owned by city residents (which includes each councilor).

At best, a small minority understands that this would impact tourism directly and indirectly; we hope that at the next meeting, held after the election, the decision on beach parking fees will be postponed until a new council is seated and politically responsible for their votes on the issue.  Remember, the rush is being made on all of this stuff because the three retiring councilors are big spenders and taxers and generally aren't concerned about living up to a different legacy.  They would take no action this evening, rather than planning to incorporate some of the concerns into the final proposal they would be considering at some point.

Two FOIA appeals were under consideration and though this would be the council's first look at the topic, their packets had none of the materials within it, so we can be fairly certain that the city manager or police chief withholding records are not proud of their public record denials to reveal them publicly.  Ironically, city administrators received over $1000 of FOIA training during this time period according to the paying of the bills section of the packet.  The city has gotten a lot worse in transparency since being trained in FOIA, it's as if the trainers (who are usually MSP clerks) are training them to better deny FOIA requests, because that's what appears to happen.

In public comment, Annette Quillan suggested city officials looked into trademarking Stearns Park.  Daniel Jensen asked two questions officials would leave unanswered:  "Will the committee develop and publish a complete financial projection showing gross revenue, operating and implementation expenses, and anticipated net revenue? Second, because the proposal includes parking at the Loomis Street boat launch area and other waterfront facilities, Will the city identify the existing state or federal grant agreements and public access conditions that may apply to those locations?"

Evan Hourihan would be the first citizen to consider beach parking an understandable inconvenience, relating his days on the east coast, he would be echoed by Jack Stibitz, so we know how he would vote on this if he were elected to represent the Fourth Ward.

When it came time for this reporter to comment, the absence of LPD Chief Christopher Jones was evident, he has missed quite a number of meetings lately-- maybe because of the long commute-- but one has to write this absence off as one that portrays his innate cowardice.  One thinks that the meeting after he published a open letter complaining about how this reporter hurt his feelings by showing his hypocrisy in moving well out of the city after bragging about himself living in the city limits, ostensibly because he couldn't take the high taxes he advocated for in the past.  I had dedicated the comment to him, but had to do an audible on it when I saw he was a no-show; at least his pen pal, Councilor John Terzano, showed up and took some of the heat for his own critique of this city critic:

XLFD: (1:58:50 in) "I thank the city for recognizing me last week.  First, Chief Jones takes a little time out from his busy life to write me a love letter and send it to the press.  But then I realize it is a letter to the Ludington community he apparently thinks he is still part of, rather than living 15 minutes out of it.  Wednesday, Councilor Terzano marched off to battle again, saying enough is enough to me, echoing the same sentiment Chris Jones ended his love letter with. 

This duet wasn't as good as Donna Summer and Barbara Streisand singing it back in the late 70s, but they made their point, they don't like being called out.  I wish Terzano, a licensed and accomplished lawyer, would have said something about the time he was a sequestered witness observing other witnesses at a jury trial before he was up, and the trial dealt with someone being charged with a crime for just standing beside a door.

The recognition continues on Wednesday as I received my fourth arraignment in three years courtesy of the go-getters at the LPD going above and beyond their call of duty to criminalize me for walking in public parks and standing outside public buildings.  I thank Thief jones for being behind all of the arraignments, but I wish I could have real crimes to be charged with like he should be:  public extortion, fraud, destroying public records.  But all I get is trespassing on public property.

The last recognition I received from the city last week was from the utility maintenance superintendent who sent me a letter affirming I was right all along about lead pipes and Ludington's leadership (lead-ership?) roll in having children with the highest elevated lead levels in their bodies.  It's because of our lead goosenecks, you may remember having Councilor Winczewski passing these around at a meeting as if it was candy..."

Of course, I had to trail off the last sentence as Mayor Barnett banged his gavel right after the time limit was reached.  More recognition.  The point that citizens need to recognize after this meeting was that city leaders will try to pass beach parking fees at the city council's last four meetings scheduled for the year, and as of now, the council believes there is no political price to pay if they make citizens exempt from paying for beach parking. 

My confession: I have never parked my own vehicle at the beach and don't plan on doing it in the future, fees or otherwise.  I always walk, ride my bicycle, or sometimes ride with someone else to go through the beach.  This fee would not affect my recreational life, but it will negatively affect tourism and ergo, local businesses that depend on that tourism.  Even something as institutional as the car ferry service, or something as minor as my firewood stand.  This is not something that should be rushed into without doing a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis that can be reviewed by all.  That city officials and some councilors want to set policy on whims and prejudices is almost as bad as their openly corrupt practices.